IR Quadrupole Magnet Project

1. IR Quadrupole Magnet Project GianLuca Sabbi LARP/Hi-Lumi Collaboration Meeting 20 April 8, 2013

2. Outline • Project plans: progress since CM19 • Magnet project in the LARP “scope selection” proposal • Deliverables, contributions, milestones, funding profile • DOE feedback and revisions for the next iteration • IR Quadrupole requirements and interfaces (HiLumi DS) • Magnet development: current status and key issues • QXF IR Quadrupole design and development • HQ02, LHQ and additional R&D in support of QXF • Summary: main goals and discussion topics for CM20

3. Construction Project Proposal • Prepared in response to DOE request following the 2012 review • Funding envelope: 200 M$ construction + 4 more years of LARP at constant funding level • Planning group formed with contributors from all Labs • “Scope selection” proposal submitted to DOE in December • Magnet plan includes: • Completion of R&D on 120 mm aperture models • Development of 150 mm “QXF” prototypes (with CERN) • Infrastructure upgrades for magnet production • Fabrication of cold masses for Q1 and Q3 elements: • 4 m long; 2 pre-series, 16 cold masses and 2 spares • 2 production lines for coils and assembly • All magnets tested in the US before shipping to CERN

4. Project schedule Prototype development Construction start Production units Spare units Main project phases:

5. Coil production details • Production plan assumed two facilities working in parallel • Studies by BNL and FNAL with generally consistent results Coil fabrication building block Initial rate (coil 1-10 at each facility) Coil production at maximum rate

6. Funding Profile • Total IR Quad development and construction: 180M$ • Includes 30% contingency (on construction only) • Project management not included (18M$ with 11% contingency) • Additional R&D not included (proposed as a GARD contribution)

7. DOE feedback on LARP proposal • Strong support for the magnet project – first priority – but: • Formal project approval (Critical Decision process) will not start for the next several years • Contingent on prototype results and a robust construction plan • Still ok to assume CD-3 in 2017 for planning purposes • Meanwhile, “project-like” approach with “CD-like” reviews • For the near term: update plan and budget assuming: • Flat funding until 2015 - only option to augment LARP resources in 13-14 is through GARD contributions • Additional “pre-project” funds may be available from FY15 to support construction infrastructure and long term procurements

8. Project plan updates • To date: incorporated most recent information • Agreed on project funding profiles within DOE guidance • Preliminary schedule assessment: additional 6-12 months • At CM20: • Refine QXF development plan, taking “project” approach • Continue discussion on GARD contributions • After CM20: • Obtain formal commitments from contributing parties • Look for possible improvements in production plan • Error bars on magnet portion may have significant effect on the other two projects • Project reviews will follow

9. Magnet Specifications & Interfaces • Significant progress by the Design Study in the last months • Details will be presented in Monday PM plenary session • Critical new information is being provided: • Baseline layout with magnet position, gradient, length • Cooling options and corresponding channel sizes • Shielding options and corresponding radiation doses • Field quality tables and limits on individual effects • Good news: it appears that we have sufficient flexibility in the overall design to find solutions compatible with available magnet technology in critical areas such as conductor, epoxy resins and mechanical structure design • Further improvements are desirable but not a precondition for successful implementation of Nb3Sn IR Quadrupoles

10. QXF Design Priorities • Three components are presently on the critical path: • Superconducting cable (required for coil design) • Cable insulation (required for coil design) • Coil fabrication tooling (long procurement time) • In parallel, comparatively large effort on other aspects • Magnetic, mechanical, quench protection, integration… • Need to optimize this investment: • (+) Ensure compatibility of key choices with all requirements • (+) Prepare to move forward rapidly • (−) Avoid detailed optimizations using preliminary specs • May have to be repeated, or worse, • May prematurely “lock” sub-optimal design choices

11. Cable Optimization Conflicting objectives result in a complex optimization process

12. Quadrupole cables from TQ to QXF (*) prelim. target values • Larger aperture, energy and forces drive up cable width and aspect ratio • Winding remains challenging: aspect ratio, low keystone, thicker cable • Introduction of core is an additional challenge requiring process changes

13. QXF cable development status Local RRR– A. Ghosh Cable design & fabrication – Dan Dietderich Cable cross-section micrographs – Dan Dietderich Winding tests – S. IzquierdoBermudez

14. Comparison with HQ Cable 974R-D3 974R-C2 D. Dietderich, H. Higley, N. Liggins, J. Swanson (2008)

15. QXF Cable Development Strategy • We are raising the bar in both difficulty and expectations • QXF requirements more challenging than TQ/LQ, HQ/LHQ • …while demanding production-level robustness and margins • Most critical building block for the magnet • Progressively more difficult to make changes as program proceeds • It was agreed to invest additional effort in cable development • Limited delay if tooling design/procurement can proceed • Strategy: perform additional optimization, but in parallel establish clear priorities to enable a decision • Challenges are not only technical • Large and “new” multi-Lab team with different experiences • First benchmark – see what lessons can be learned • High priority for CM20 - Details in Tuesday morning session

16. Cable insulation and coil tooling • Cable insulation spec also required for coil design • Initial baseline was a braid of 150 mm thickness • Need sample fabrication to confirm dimensions • 125 mm option may be easier to produce • Also attractive in terms of magnetic efficiency • Confirm electrical requirements/trade-offs • Coil tooling is currently on the critical path • Traditionally procured after final coil design • Add features to accommodate expected range • Overall a better approach for first models In both cases, it should be possible to resolve remaining questions during CM20

17. Recent progress on HQ/LHQ • HQ02 coil series completed: • Reduced compaction, improved insulation, cored cable (presentation by F. Borgnolutti, Monday PM) • HQ02a model assembled: • Achieved pre-load targets and contact with alignment keys • Clear benefits from improvements in coil fabrication • Improved coil uniformity and electrical QA • (presentation by H. Felice, Monday PM) • HQ02 test preparations underway at Fermilab • Positive feedback from mechanical model of HQ alternate structure • (presentation by J. Schmaltzle, Monday PM) • First LHQ coil wound and cured • (presentation by Miao Yu, Monday PM)

18. HQ and LHQ status HQ02a pre-load HQ02a impulse test Assembled HQ02a magnet Alt. structure model Fabrication of first LHQ practice coil

19. Future R&D in support of QXF • Available platforms can efficiently support QXF and HiLumi DS • Details were covered in CM19 presentation • Current plan includes HQ02 and LHQ mirror • No firm plans to carry out additional R&D beyond that • Leaves 1-2 year gap: • HQ02 testing complete in 2013, first SQXF test in mid-2015 • LHQ complete by mid-2014, first LQXF test in early 2016 • We need to find the optimal balance: • Provide needed resources for QXF to move forward quickly • Provide experimental feedback on key issues in the interim • Important topic for CM20 discussion and recommendations • Significant opportunities for GARD contributions in this area

20. Summary and CM20 topics • Discuss project plan updates/refinements and prepare reviews • QXF - technical • Cable assessment, next optimization steps, design selection criteria • Resolve remaining questions on cable insulation & tooling design • QXF - planning and schedule: • Efficiency: use of infrastructure, avoid duplications of effort etc. • Balance/priority between short and long models • Technical: initial focus on short models, then scale-up • DOE review: emphasis on long prototypes to enable project start • How to formalize and manage contributions from different parties • R&D in support of QXF and the HiLumi design study: • Evaluation of HQ/LHQ results and next steps • Future needs and optimal resource balance • Continue discussion on GARD contributions